Question based on (Groups)

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get our expert's

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions.

- walters

Question based on (Groups)

- chestercat

I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- walters

jjj let the mapping \[\tau _{ab}\] for a,b element R ,maps the reals by the ruel
\[\tau _{ab}:x \rightarrow ax+b.Let G={\tau _{ab}:a \neq 0}\]
Determine whether or not G is an abelian group under the composition of mappings

- walters

oops ignore jjj

- KingGeorge

Well, let \(\tau_{ab},\tau_{cd}\in G\). Then \[\tau_{ab}\circ\tau_{cd}(x)=\tau_{ab}(cx+d)=acx+ad+b.\]Also, \[\tau_{cd}\circ\tau_{ab}(x)=\tau_{cd}(ax+b)=cax+bc+d.\]Since \(acx+ad+b\neq acx+bc+d\), it must be that \(G\) is not abelian.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- walters

am i not suppose to check whether is a group using the condition before i can conclude that is an abelian group

- KingGeorge

It just asked if it was an abelian group. Since the elements don't commute, it can't be an abelian group even if it is a group. However, if we want to check it's a group, we can do that as well.
Have you shown any of the axioms for proving it's a group yet?

- walters

i am failing to show the axioms

- KingGeorge

First, we can see that \(G\) is closed under composition. \[\tau_{ab}\circ\tau_{cd}(x)=\tau_{ab}(cx+d)=acx+ad+b=\tau_{(ac)(ad+b)}.\]We also have the identity \(\tau_{10}\). Now we just have to check associativity and inverses.

- walters

why do u chose to use |dw:1360875075213:dw|

- KingGeorge

"\(\circ\)" is a relatively common notation to denote the composition of two functions. You can also use \(\tau_{ab}(\tau_{cd}(x))\) is you prefer.

- walters

can u also use * if u wnt

- KingGeorge

For inverses, we want \[\tau_{ab}\circ\tau_{cd}(x)=acx+ad+b=x\]for some \(c,d\in\mathbb{R}\). We can see that \(c=a^{-1}\) and \(d=a^{-1}(-b)\) work for this direction. For the other, \[\tau_{cd}\circ\tau_{ab}(x)=cax+bc+d=a^{-1}ax+ba^{-1}-a^{-1}b=x,\]so we do indeed have inverses.

- KingGeorge

If you make it clear your group function is composition of functions, you can use * as well.

- KingGeorge

As for associativity, I'm just going to use the fact that composition of functions is always associative. If you have not heard of that yet, we can still go over how to prove this particular function is associative.

- walters

please do

- KingGeorge

let \(\tau_{ab},\tau_{cd},\tau_{ef}\in G\). Then\[\tau_{ab}\circ(\tau_{cd}\circ\tau_{ef})(x)=\tau_{ab}=\tau_{ab}(cex+cf+d)=acex+acf+ad+b\]and\[(\tau_{ab}\circ\tau_{cd})\circ\tau_{ef}(x)=(\tau_{(ac)(ad+b)})(ex+f)=acex+acf+ad+b\]Since these are equal, it's associative, and we have a group.

- walters

k it is a group but not an abelian group

- KingGeorge

Yup.

- walters

thnx

- KingGeorge

You're welcome.

- walters

can we verify identity

- KingGeorge

\[\tau_{10}(x)=1x+0=x\]

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.